2017 WI 103

SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN

CASE NO.: 2017AP539-D

COMPLETE TITLE: In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 

Against Ronald L. Brandt, Attorney at Law:

Office of Lawyer Regulation,

 Complainant,

 v.

Ronald L. Brandt,

 Respondent.

DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST BRANDT

OPINION FILED: December 15, 2017

SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS:

ORAL ARGUMENT:

SOURCE OF APPEAL:

COURT:

COUNTY:

JUDGE:

JUSTICES:

CONCURRED: ABRAHAMSON, J. concurs (opinion filed).

DISSENTED:

NOT PARTICIPATING: 

ATTORNEYS:
2017 WI 103

NOTICE

This opinion is subject to further 

editing and modification. The final 

version will appear in the bound 

volume of the official reports. 

No. 2017AP539-D

STATE OF WISCONSIN : IN SUPREME COURT

In the Matter of Disciplinary Proceedings 

Against Ronald L. Brandt, Attorney at Law:

Office of Lawyer Regulation,

 Complainant,

 v.

Ronald L. Brandt,

 Respondent.

FILED

DEC 15, 2017

Diane M. Fremgen

Clerk of Supreme Court

ATTORNEY disciplinary proceeding. Attorney's license 

revoked. 

¶1 PER CURIAM. In this disciplinary proceeding, we are 

asked to determine whether Attorney Ronald L. Brandt's license 

to practice law in Wisconsin should be revoked, as discipline 

reciprocal to that imposed by the Supreme Judicial Court of 

Massachusetts.

¶2 After considering this matter and in view of Attorney 

Brandt's failure to respond to our order to show cause, we 

conclude that Attorney Brandt's license to practice law in 
No. 2017AP539-D 

2

Wisconsin should be revoked. Given that this matter has been 

resolved without a contest or the appointment of a referee, we 

do not impose any costs on Attorney Brandt.

¶3 Attorney Brandt was admitted to the practice of law in 

this state in June 1972 and in the state of Massachusetts in 

January 1982. According to information provided to the State 

Bar of Wisconsin, Attorney Brandt most recently practiced law in 

Massachusetts.

¶4 Attorney Brandt has been the subject of professional 

discipline in this state on one prior occasion. In 2011 this 

court publicly reprimanded Attorney Brandt as discipline 

reciprocal to that also imposed by the Supreme Judicial Court of 

Massachusetts. See In re Disciplinary Proceedings Against

Brandt, 2011 WI 92, 337 Wis. 2d 43, 803 N.W.2d 845.

¶5 Attorney Brandt's license to practice law in Wisconsin 

has been administratively suspended since October 2013 due to 

his failure to pay bar dues and to file a required annual trust 

account certificate.

¶6 The Office of Lawyer Regulation (OLR) initiated this 

disciplinary proceeding by filing a complaint, order to answer, 

and a motion requesting this court to issue an order directing 

Attorney Brandt to show cause, in writing, under Supreme Court 

Rule (SCR) 22.22(3),1 why the imposition of discipline identical 

 

1 SCR 22.22(3) provides:

(3) The supreme court shall impose the identical 

discipline or license suspension unless one or more of 

the following is present:

(continued)
No. 2017AP539-D 

3

to that imposed in Massachusetts would be unwarranted. After 

Attorney Brandt was served with these documents, this court 

issued such an order to show cause on June 15, 2017. Our order 

directed Attorney Brandt to file his response by July 5, 2017. 

Attorney Brandt has not filed a response to the order to show 

cause, nor has he filed any answer or motion in response to the 

OLR's complaint.

¶7 The OLR's complaint alleges that on January 30, 2017, 

the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts indefinitely 

suspended Attorney Brandt's license to practice law in that 

state. The OLR's complaint also alleges that Attorney Brandt 

failed to notify the OLR of this indefinite suspension, as 

required under SCR 22.22(1).2

 

(a) The procedure in the other jurisdiction was 

so lacking in notice or opportunity to be heard as to 

constitute a deprivation of due process. 

(b) There was such an infirmity of proof 

establishing the misconduct or medical incapacity that 

the supreme court could not accept as final the 

conclusion in respect to the misconduct or medical 

incapacity. 

(c) The misconduct justifies substantially 

different discipline in this state.

2 SCR 22.22(1) provides:

An attorney on whom public discipline for 

misconduct or a license suspension for medical 

incapacity has been imposed by another jurisdiction 

shall promptly notify the director of the matter. 

Failure to furnish the notice within 20 days of the 

effective date of the order or judgment of the other 

jurisdiction constitutes misconduct.
No. 2017AP539-D 

4

¶8 According to the underlying Massachusetts disciplinary 

records attached to the OLR's complaint, the indefinite 

suspension was the result of Attorney Brandt's misconduct in 

three client representations, as well as his failure to 

cooperate with the Massachusetts bar counsel and to comply with 

an administrative suspension that was imposed due to his lack of 

cooperation. Because Attorney Brandt did not file an answer or 

otherwise respond to the bar counsel's complaint, he was found 

to be in default with respect to the allegations of misconduct 

in the Massachusetts disciplinary complaint.

¶9 In the first client representation, a couple retained 

Attorney Brandt to represent them in clearing legal title to 

their residence. Pursuant to a written fee agreement, the 

couple gave Attorney Brandt an advance fee of $7,500, which he 

deposited into his client trust account. Attorney Brandt, 

however, failed to perform any substantial legal services and to 

respond to the couple's several requests for information about 

their matter over the course of approximately seven months. In 

May 2015, Attorney Brandt closed his client trust account and 

had the remaining balance in the account ($6,764.16) disbursed 

to himself, even though he had not earned any of the remaining 

funds. Prior to withdrawing the couple's funds, Attorney Brandt 

did not send them an itemized bill, written notice of the 

intended withdrawal, or a statement of the balance of their 

funds. Attorney Brandt converted the couple's funds for his own 

personal purposes or for purposes in other unrelated 

representations. 
No. 2017AP539-D 

5

¶10 In June 2015 Attorney Brandt vacated his law office. 

He did not notify the couple. In July 2015, due to their 

inability to contact Attorney Brandt, the couple terminated his 

representation and requested a return of their file and the 

advance fee. Despite several additional attempts to obtain 

their file and the unearned advance fee, Attorney Brandt never 

responded to their requests. 

¶11 Based on these facts, Attorney Brandt was found to 

have violated the following Massachusetts Rules of Professional 

Conduct (Mass. R. Prof. C.) in existence at the time of his 

misconduct: 1.1, 1.2(a), 1.3, 1.4(a) and (b), 1.15(b) and (d), 

1.16(d) and (e), and 8.4(c) and (h).

¶12 In the second client representation, Attorney Brandt 

was retained in June 2013 to represent J.M. in an employment 

discrimination claim. For the first six months Attorney Brandt 

failed to respond to at least nine emails sent by J.M., as well 

as her numerous telephone calls. Attorney Brandt ultimately did 

file a civil action on J.M.'s behalf in February 2014, but he 

failed to respond to any of the defendants' discovery requests, 

to propound discovery requests to the defendants, or to depose 

the defendants. He also failed to advise J.M. of her scheduled 

deposition until two days before it was to occur. When she 

asked to postpone the deposition so she could prepare 

adequately, Attorney Brandt said that was not possible because 

the notice had been on his desk for over a week. Attorney 

Brandt's continuing failure to respond to J.M.'s multiple 

attempts at communication over the next year ultimately led her 
No. 2017AP539-D 

6

to terminate Attorney Brandt's representation and to hire 

successor counsel, who then requested a copy of J.M.'s file. 

Attorney Brandt failed to provide the file. Despite Attorney 

Brandt's lack of cooperation, successor counsel was able to 

resolve the matter in J.M.'s favor. 

¶13 In the J.M. matter, Attorney Brandt was found to have 

violated Mass. R. Prof. C. 1.1, 1.2(a), 1.3, 1.4(a) and (b), and 

1.16(e).

¶14 The third client matter involved Attorney Brandt's 

representation of a homeowner in a dispute regarding work 

performed at the homeowner's residence. The fee agreement 

provided for a contingency in Attorney Brandt's favor, plus the 

payment of a "non-refundable retainer" in the amount of $2,500. 

The homeowner initially wished Attorney Brandt to pursue a claim 

against a subcontractor due to allegedly defective work. 

¶15 The general contractor sued the homeowner shortly 

after Attorney Brandt had been retained. Attorney Brandt filed 

an answer and asserted certain counterclaims against the general 

contractor. The trial court subsequently dismissed some of the 

homeowner's counterclaims and gave him thirty days to join the 

subcontractor as a necessary party to the litigation. The 

general contractor subsequently propounded discovery requests to 

the homeowner, to which Attorney Brandt failed to respond, 

resulting in motions to compel. Attorney Brandt failed to 

propound any discovery to the general contractor and failed to 

move to join the subcontractor within the time frame established 

by the court. The general contractor then filed a second motion 
No. 2017AP539-D 

7

to dismiss the homeowner's counterclaims, which Attorney Brandt 

failed to oppose, resulting in the granting of the motion.

¶16 In September 2015 counsel for the general contractor 

informed the court that he had not received answers to letters 

sent to Attorney Brandt for several months and that Attorney 

Brandt's telephone had been disconnected. When Attorney Brandt 

failed to notify the client or to appear at a final pre-trial 

conference in December 2015, the court entered a default against 

the homeowner. 

¶17 Given the circumstances, the court directly notified 

the homeowner of the default. The homeowner attempted multiple 

times to contact Attorney Brandt, but he did not respond. 

Consequently, the homeowner terminated Attorney Brandt's 

representation and retained successor counsel, who immediately 

requested a copy of the homeowner's client file. Attorney 

Brandt failed to provide the file as requested. The homeowner 

also requested a refund of the "non-refundable retainer," but 

Attorney Brandt did not provide any refund.

¶18 Based on these facts, Attorney Brandt was found to 

have violated Mass. R. Prof. C. 1.1, 1.2(a), 1.3, 1.4(a) and 

(b), 1.16(d) and (e). 

¶19 Following receipt of grievances from the clients 

identified above, the Massachusetts bar counsel sent the 

grievances to Attorney Brandt and requested responses within 

specified time periods. Bar counsel also requested Attorney 

Brandt to appear at bar counsel's office. Attorney Brandt 

failed to respond to the grievances or to appear at bar 
No. 2017AP539-D 

8

counsel's office as requested. As a result of his failure to 

cooperate, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts issued an 

order administratively suspending Attorney Brandt's license to 

practice law in that state. The order further directed Attorney 

Brandt to take certain steps within 30 days, but Attorney Brandt 

failed to comply. Attorney Brandt's lack of cooperation and his 

failure to comply with the Supreme Judicial Court's suspension 

order was found to have violated multiple rules of professional 

conduct.

¶20 Under SCR 22.22(3), this court shall impose the 

identical discipline or license suspension imposed on an 

attorney in another jurisdiction, unless one or more of three 

exceptions apply. Attorney Brandt has not responded to the 

order to show cause or alleged that any exception applies. 

After reviewing the matter, we conclude that none of the three 

exceptions applies. We therefore revoke Attorney Brandt's 

license to practice law in Wisconsin, as the most similar form 

of discipline to the indefinite suspension imposed by the 

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts. Given the resolution 

of this matter without any substantial litigation, we do not 

impose costs on Attorney Brandt.

¶21 IT IS ORDERED that the license of Ronald L. Brandt to 

practice law in Wisconsin is revoked, effective the date of this 

order.

¶22 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Ronald L. Brandt shall 

comply with the provisions of SCR 22.26 concerning the duties of 
No. 2017AP539-D 

9

a person whose license to practice law in Wisconsin has been 

revoked.
No. 2017AP539-D.ssa

1

¶23 SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON, J. (concurring). This is a 

reciprocal discipline case governed by Supreme Court Rule 

(SCR) 22.22(3). SCR 22.22(3) requires this court to impose 

"identical discipline" to that imposed by the other state. The 

per curiam opinion does not adhere to the text of the rule. 

Rather, the per curiam opinion revokes the attorney's license to 

practice law "as the most similar form of discipline to the 

indefinite suspension imposed by the Supreme Judicial Court of 

Massachusetts."

¶24 I write to point out that once again the instant case 

raises the question of what constitutes "identical discipline" 

under SCR 22.22(3). I suggest, as I have suggested previously, 

that the OLR Procedure Review Committee (Professor Marsha 

Mansfield, University of Wisconsin Law School, Reporter), 

appointed by the court in June 2016, should consider proposing a 

revision of the Supreme Court reciprocal discipline rule to 

govern the many instances in which this court cannot impose 

discipline identical to that imposed by the other state. 
No. 2017AP539-D.ssa

1